Aside from the flow technique mentioned below, I think it is pretty common.
If I'm acting as the non-flying pilot, my job is to talk to ATC, set radios, load flight plans and instrument approaches, etc. As an example (slight variation), if ATC gives us a flight level change, I would dial in the final altitude on the altitude pre-select. Typically, I'd repeat the clearance back to ATC, put my hand on the dial, change it and leave my hand on it until the flying pilot says "I see FL230".
I sometimes use the point technique before changing something, or after while repeating "I see ..." or "I did ...". It's really effective at making sure you don't do things mindlessly.
The safety value proposition of the max is kind of hard to sell after two planes crashed. It was already the most successful plane ever in terms of avoiding retraining right?
All that unlocked safety value didn't count for much.
Accelerate-go is definitely used in twin pistons and turboprops. For example, in the DA-42, V1 is specified as 75 kts. In the King Air 350, V1 is typically around 100 kts.
I do stand corrected on the King Air 350 (and it's likely that the P180, Dash-8, ATR-42 will also be similar and come with balanced field restrictions). Thank you for that correction.
Accelerate-go calculations do not necessarily mean that engine failures before rotation are to be taken aloft. My 58P has accelerate-go charts published (they're not pretty at heavy weights on high/hot days). Nevertheless, any engine failure with the nosewheel on the ground is an abort/RTO.
The DA-42 I can't find any reference for V1 below Vr and to take an engine failure prior to Vr aloft. That was looking in the QRH and checklists for the aircraft. I see both specified at 75 knots and the checklist response for engine failure on the roll is only the rejected takeoff instructions.
Parking downtown is bad, but I'd be curious what cities you are comparing it to with respect to traffic. I grew up in Chicago and lived in the Bay Area for a few years, and those are both far worse. A lot of the newer tech jobs are fairly close to downtown, the strip or the east end (both my wife and I are able to walk to work almost every day).
I understand your position, but I think these companies do exist here. I know, because I've been at a few of them (Avere Systems and Bossa Nova Robotics, for example). I think our biggest challenge is getting sufficient capital in the region. The airport situation has been a serious impediment - great airport, few direct flights to the west coast - but that is changing.
https://research.ece.cmu.edu/piperench/